Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Puzzle time - integers

Puzzle time - integers

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
18 Posts 2 Posters 98 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • KlausK Offline
    KlausK Offline
    Klaus
    wrote on last edited by
    #4

    I'm happy to help 🙂

    There are many such definitions where you want something different from "smallest" (e.g. coinductive definitions).

    1 Reply Last reply
    • KlausK Offline
      KlausK Offline
      Klaus
      wrote on last edited by Klaus
      #5

      1 is not in S.

      (note that you didn't ask for an exhaustive list of those not in S 😉 )

      1 Reply Last reply
      • KlausK Offline
        KlausK Offline
        Klaus
        wrote on last edited by
        #6

        ...and if you want the complete set:

        It's the set of positive integers minus S.

        Which is a perfectly valid mathematical definition of the integers not in S.

        So presumably you want us to specify that set in a particular way?

        😉

        1 Reply Last reply
        • jon-nycJ Offline
          jon-nycJ Offline
          jon-nyc
          wrote on last edited by
          #7

          Ha

          Only non-witches get due process.

          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
          1 Reply Last reply
          • KlausK Offline
            KlausK Offline
            Klaus
            wrote on last edited by Klaus
            #8

            :::

            Obviously, when a number n is in S, then n+5 must also be in S.

            So once we have all digits from 0 to 4 (or 5 to 9) as last digits of numbers, all numbers above it must be in S.

            So the question is whether we ever get all last digits.

            I think we can get to all last-digits except 0 and 5, since any number that ends with 0 or 5 squared also ends with 0 or 5.

            So, my theory about the positive integers not in S is:

            There's some noise in the beginning, and after a while it's only the numbers that end with 0 or 5.

            :::

            1 Reply Last reply
            • jon-nycJ Offline
              jon-nycJ Offline
              jon-nyc
              wrote on last edited by
              #9

              :::

              On the right track but not quite there

              :::

              Only non-witches get due process.

              • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
              1 Reply Last reply
              • KlausK Offline
                KlausK Offline
                Klaus
                wrote on last edited by
                #10

                So you are saying my last statement is wrong, or are you saying it's not precise enough?

                1 Reply Last reply
                • jon-nycJ Offline
                  jon-nycJ Offline
                  jon-nyc
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #11

                  Depends on how one defines ‘noise‘. But what I really mean is “from what I infer from your words you’re still missing an insight here”

                  Only non-witches get due process.

                  • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • KlausK Offline
                    KlausK Offline
                    Klaus
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #12

                    OK, here's a precise version of the statement:

                    :::

                    There is a number N, such that for all n >N, n is not in S if and only if the last digit of n is 0 or 5.

                    :::

                    Is that correct?

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • jon-nycJ Offline
                      jon-nycJ Offline
                      jon-nyc
                      wrote on last edited by jon-nyc
                      #13

                      Yes but tell me N. You’re missing something or you would know what N is.

                      Only non-witches get due process.

                      • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                      1 Reply Last reply
                      • KlausK Offline
                        KlausK Offline
                        Klaus
                        wrote on last edited by Klaus
                        #14

                        N is smaller than or equal to 2915. Now don't tell me you want me to worry about selecting a particular number between 1 and 2915!!!

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        • jon-nycJ Offline
                          jon-nycJ Offline
                          jon-nyc
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #15

                          Yes I do.

                          Only non-witches get due process.

                          • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                          1 Reply Last reply
                          • jon-nycJ Offline
                            jon-nycJ Offline
                            jon-nyc
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #16

                            What Klaus missed:

                            :::

                            The only ‘noise’ (besides all multiples of 5) is the number 1.

                            • 2 is granted which gets you all numbers ending in 2 or 7.
                            • 7^2 is 49 which gets you all the numbers ending in 9 and 4 above that
                            • after 49 is 54. 54^2 is 3136 which gets you all the numbers ending in 6 or 1 above it.
                              BUT
                            • once you have the *6s, you’ll get to 6^8 which gets you back to 6 and 11, etc.
                            • that gets you to 16 which gets you back to 4 and 9
                            • that 9 gets you back to 3 and 8

                            So we have 2,3,4,6,7,8,9 covered plus any number that is a multiple of 5 above them.

                            So only 1 is missing, along with all multiples of 5

                            :::

                            Only non-witches get due process.

                            • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                            1 Reply Last reply
                            • KlausK Offline
                              KlausK Offline
                              Klaus
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #17

                              Nice!

                              54^2 is 2916 and not 3136, though - that was the source of the 2915 bound I was giving above. So my bound was pointing in the right direction 🙂

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              • jon-nycJ Offline
                                jon-nycJ Offline
                                jon-nyc
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #18

                                My math buddy at CS pointed out that Fermat’s Little Theorem could help here too rather than finding actual paths back to the lower numbers.

                                Only non-witches get due process.

                                • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                                1 Reply Last reply
                                Reply
                                • Reply as topic
                                Log in to reply
                                • Oldest to Newest
                                • Newest to Oldest
                                • Most Votes


                                • Login

                                • Don't have an account? Register

                                • Login or register to search.
                                • First post
                                  Last post
                                0
                                • Categories
                                • Recent
                                • Tags
                                • Popular
                                • Users
                                • Groups